The Sum of a CONFERENCE Had between TWO DIVINES OF THE Church of England And Two CATHOLIC LAY-GENTLEMEN At the Request and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality August 8. 1671. Publisht with Allowance LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel for him and Matthew Turner 1687. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER SInce Printing of Conferences seems now in Vogue I will venture to be in the new Mode I have so good an Example of it before me that I hope no body will take it ill if I follow it In the Year 1676. there happen'd a Conference about Points of Religion between some Protestant Divines and some Roman-Catholic Gentlemen which after a long silence has been now lately set out the second time in a fine Dress and with a long Preface This gave me the Curiosity to seek further into those Matters and meeting accidentally with a Copy of another Conference held in 1671. wherein some of the same Persons were concern'd I thought good to present you with it By it 's plain Expressions and unstudied Discourse you may easily judge it to be the naked Truth of what was then spoken Peruse it and think seriously of it The Sum of a Conference had between Two Divines of the Church of England and Two Catholic Lay-Gentlemen at the Request and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality Aug. 8. 1671. THE Persons for whom the Conference was intended desir'd the Subject might be Schism Subject agreed Drs. It is fit we presuppose some Principles before we enter into dispute Cath. Content Dr. 1. Schism is a wilful Separation from the Communion of the Church without cause Cath. Tho' we know very well there can be no cause of Schism yet we will admit to come quickly to the Question your notion of Schism with these words without cause in your Definition of it Dr. 2. Another Principle is Men may without Crime separate from a Communion in which they cannot continue without Sin. Cath. Agreed Dr. 3. There are certain Laws antecedent to Communion by which every particular person ought to judge what Communion he ought to be of or forsake Cath. We do admit that there are external Motives antecedent to Communion which do induce and oblige a particular person to choose the Communion of which he ought to be a Member and to which he ought being a Member to submit in Faith and Government of which every particular person may and ought to judge But we do deny that the interior Doctrins or general Practices of a Communion are subject to the Judgment of every particular Man so that every private person judging this or that Doctrin or Practice to be False Heretical or Idolatrous tho' the Communion of which he is a Member judges it Catholic and Orthodox has lawful cause to separate himself from that Communion without being guilty of Criminal Schism for without this Distinction there could be no such thing as Schism in the World. Dr. You must prove us guilty of Criminal Schism Cath. We will. In the year 1517 you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church without cause Ergo you are Criminal Schismatics Dr. I do deny that the Separation in the year 1517 do's concern us nor do we think our selves oblig'd to defend or justifie it we do only maintain that the Church of England is not guilty of Criminal Schism Cath. The same Argument presses the Church of England as the Lutherans Let it be therefore put thus In King Hen. the 8th Ed. the 6th or Queen Elizabeths Days date the Birth of your Church from what time you please you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church without cause Ergo you the Church of England are guilty of Criminal Schism Dr. I deny your Antecedent we did not separate without cause Cath. I prove it If you had lawful cause you can assign it but you cannot assign any lawful cause Ergo you did separate without cause Dr. I will assign the cause It was thus In the Year of Henry the 8th the Parliament declared That the Right of Reforming the Church of this Kingdom was in the King upon which the King did reform and upon this Reformation the Pope did Excommunicate the King and Kingdom which Excommunication was confirm'd by another Pope in Queen Elizabeths days so that the Pope by Excommunicating made the Schism and not we by Reforming Cath. The Declaration above mentioned and the Reformation thereupon were antecedent to the Excommunication so that you must prove that the Parliament had just Power and Authority to make that Declaration and to Reform upon it and that they did indeed Reform and not spoil the Doctrin they undertook to mend for if it had not all its Proceedings were unjust and criminal and Excommunication was but the just and proper Punishment for that Crime And then sure it would be reckoned very strange to say That a lawful Authority punishing an Offender is made guilty of the Crime it punishes by inflicting that Punishment Dr. The Parliament did not ascribe any new Power to the King but only declar'd that the same was in him which all Ages appropriated to their Kings and was allow'd by all And I can shew from time to time that the Popes Authority has been refus'd and his Legats forbid entrance into the Kingdom several times Cath. I pray shew substantially if you can that the Church of England before the Reformation did never at any time accept or which is positive did at all times refuse the Pope all sort of Authority and Superiority over them else to quarrel sometimes with his Authority or some part of it or stop his Legats might be just For that it is possible for a Power which has lawful Authority to challenge and demand some sort of Authority which is more than what is lawfully his and in such case the Inferiors may at least remonstrate to their Superiors if not oppose them in such unlawful Demands and this might be the case between the Pope and the King of England at some particular time At other times Inferiors might be stubborn and disobedient and for a time deny that to their Superiors which is really due Therefore to say that the Kings of England did for a time oppose the Pope in some things is not enough to prove the Declaration aforesaid which was universal denying him all Authority whatsoever to be no ascribing of new Power but only a Declaration that the same Power was in That King which all Ages appropriated to their Kings and was allow'd by all but the contrary to what is now demanded to be prov'd and must be prov'd before that Declaration can excuse the Declarers from the guilt of causeless Separation and consequently Criminal Schism and consequently of deserving justly Excommunication is so evident that I appeal to these present worthy persons who are to judge in this point whether this be not sufficiently
do frequently make mention of some wonderful Change but we do not undertake to determin Magisterially and say what manner of Change this is nor does our Church impose such a Determination as a neccessary Condition of Communion with us as the Church of Rome does and such a one as the Fathers contradict as we have shewn out of Theodoret and Gelasius And this very Father quoted here viz. St. Cyril calls it Bread and Wine at the same time that he calls it the Body and Blood of Christ For the first Words of his Quotation are When Christ affirms of Bread c. You must shew that the Substance of Bread ceases Cath. The Evidence you pretend to from Theodoret and Gelasius we think we have spoke to sufficiently already If the Fathers do mention some wonderful Change in the Sacrament and the Protestants do agree with them in allowing that there is such a Change but cannot say what a one it is what cause have they to separate from a great Communion even the whole visible Catholic Church upon Earth when for ought they know this Change which they grant may be Transubstantiation which they deny and make the Cause of their Separation as being false For they acknowledge they know not how it is chang'd and in such Cases as this I cannot imagine how they can attain a Negative Knowledge without a Positive i. e. how they can be certain it is not Transubstantiation when the whole Catholic Church said it was and not to be able to know Certainly what it is especially when to believe right of this Point is an Article of Faith conditional of Man's Salvation and therefore necessary to be believed in its true Sense especially when the Consequence of believing wrong will be Blasphemy or Idolatry in the Practice For if Transelementation in St. Gregory and Transmutation in St. Cyril both which terms the Doctor owns and allows should mean as much as Transubstantiation then are the Protestants guilty of Heresie in believing the wrong side of a Proposition which contains in it an Article of Faith and of Blasphemy in practice in robbing God of his Honor and using him like a Creature Now what should make them think for know I am sure they cannot that Transelementation signifies less than Transubstantiation For sure by Elements are meant Substances Moreover in all Changes there must a Term from which and a Term to which In this Change I desire to know the Term from which and to what it is chang'd From Bread to Christ's Body were an Answer intelligible and agreeable to the Terms by which the Change is express'd But to say from Common Bread to Sanctified Bread is to talk very unintelligibly and very unanswerably to the expression you use to this Change for this would not be at all wonderful We see Churches and Church-yards thus chang'd every day from Common to Consecrated or Sanctified Places and yet we think it no Wonder or account it no Miracle yet we should wonder to hear one say after consecrating a Church or a Churchyard it were Transelementated or chang'd wonderfully by the Word of God as St. Gregory says or By the power of the holy Spirit as Gelasius has it or By the Omnipotency of God as St. Cyprian says and many other Fathers in such like Expressions You say you do not determin the Change c. the more to blame you For if it be necessary to Salvation to believe right in this Point i. e. to believe that the Object present to you after Consecration is the Body of Christ if it be so and to believe it it is not if it be not so then ought you at least to determin whether it be so or no and make a firm Assent to that your Determination a necessary Condition of Communion with you a firm and actual Belief of one of these two Propositions It is really the Body of Christ or it is not being a necessary Condition of Mans Salvation For sure you will hold that that which is a necessary Condition of Salvation ought to be made a necessary Condition of Communion therefore if you do not determin at least so far as to say It is or it is not the Body of Christ and require that this your Determination be believ'd as a Condition of Communion with you you do by the first i. e. not determining leave all People in your Communion in a very great uncertainty as to the Condition of their Salvation For how can private persons have any kind of certainty in a disputed Point without some judicial Determination of that dispute After which indeed they may have Certainty or Probability answerable to the Authority of the Determination which will be infallible if the Authority be infallible or only a Probability and that greater or less according to the Degrees of Credit which the Authority may challenge if that Authority be but able to give a probable Determination By the second viz. not requiring the belief of your Determination as a Condition of Communion in case you do determin you do consess that Heretics and Blasphemers or Heretics and Idolaters may be of your Communion tho' professedly such i. e. you do allow your Communion to them who observe not the Condition of their Salvation For if determining it not to be the Body of Christ you do not make the belief of this Determination a Condition of Communion you do allow those that believe contradictorily i. e. that it is the Body Christ and in consequence of that belief make it the formal Object of Adoration to be of your Communion and yet if your Determination be true these last who believe and adore as a aforesaid are Idolaters and do break thereby the Condition of their Salvation Now I leave to the judgment of the Company whether this undetermined Doctrin of yours be a lawful cause for you to separate from the Church you were once Members of and was acknowledg'd the true Church to believe you know not what your selves for I am sure you cannot determin what change it is As to the Term Bread used by the Father it can create no difficulty for when we said as we did at first that all Scripture was to be expounded Literally if the literal Sense did not imply a Contradiction we did suppose that in case it did imply a Contradiction it ought to be expounded otherwise Instance was given in this I am a Vine What we suppos'd of the Scripture must hold of all Speeches if the literal Sense implies a Contradiction they must be expounded otherwise Now mark the Father he says Christ affirming of Bread this is my Body c. This Bread is my Body is a Contradiction therefore Bread or Body must not be taken Literally At the latter end of this Quotation the Father says the Bread which we see is not Bread but the Body of Christ there cannot be a plainer Contradiction than is and is not therefore Bread the Subject in this
manifest from the Histories which they themselves have read and the general Confessions which they themselves have met withal from very many even learned Protestants That the Pope of Rome was at least Patriarch of the West and as such had Patriarchal Authority at least over the Church of England and therefore was allow'd to be the proper Judge of Ecclesiastical Matters the very day before the foresaid Declaration was made and therefore was the only proper Judge of the said Declaration and the Authors of it whether it were well and legally made And this said Judge having judicially determin'd the said Declaration to be Schismatical condemned it legally and justly Excommunicated the Authors Most certainly a Declaration made by every one that pretends Power to make one is not presently lawful because it is pretended to be so The late long Parliament pretended to declare That the Supream Power of England was in the People and that the said People might Judge and Depose the King whenever he misused that Power which the People entrusted him withal and we know what followed upon it I hope the Doctor will not justifie that Declaration nor can he shew a disparity between this and the other both being made by those who were universally esteem'd at the time they made them Subjects and Inferiors to those against whose Authority they made them in those very Points concerning which they did then declare Drs. The Pope was never content to be esteem'd barely the Patriarch of the West and there is great difference between the two Declarations that in Hen. Eighth's time against the Pope and that in King Charles the First 's time against his Majesty Cath. It matters not now whether the Pope were content or no to be barely esteem'd Patriarch of the West if he had reason to challenge more that no ways justifies you Do you allow that he was Patriarch If you do answer the difficulty and say how his Inferiors came by a Power to Depose him and as to the difference between the two Declarations you must shew it us before we believe there is any Gentlemen to the Doctors Sirs we do not doubt but that the Pope was allow'd some Authority in England before the Separation we do not therefore desire to dispute that but supposing he had not you separated your selves from the great Body of all Christians United before in one Communion we desire to know what cause you could have for that Drs. We had cause to separate for that the Communion from which we separated taught false Faith and were guilty of Idolatry I instance particularly in their Doctrin of Transubstantiation and their Adoring the Host Cath. To the Company Tho' you may be pleas'd to remember that we did at first deny that any particular person and the same holds of particular Diocesses Provinces and Nations all which United make but one Catholic Church and therefore the biggest of them all to be consider'd only as a Member of the whole Body has Power to judge and condemn the Doctrins and Practices of the whole Church as false or Idolatrous when the Body against this Member says that the said Doctrins or Practices are Orthodox and Catholic so as to have lawful cause to separate from the said whole Communion without being guilty of criminal Schism That what we said of a particular Person holds to a Nation or any Inferior Authority to a Superior is evident upon supposition that God has requir'd and commanded that his Church be one which could not be if a Secular Sovereign Power has Authority to break its Unity upon pretence of judging any one of it's Doctrins or Practices false or Idolatrous For if one may another may and then Swisserland may have as many Religions and Communions as Cantons and the World as many Churches as Secular Sovereigns tho' God has said he will have but One And here in England the Bishops may as well wave the Arch-bishops Authority private persons pretend to Judge and Censure the Bishops Power and Authority or any one Man controul the Authority of his Pastor Tho' this we deny'd at first and might therefore well refuse to proceed till the Doctors had prov'd that a single Person might condemn a whole Church's Doctrin legally or a lesser Authority judge and censure a greater yet because perhaps this Method may have been propos'd by your selves we are content to do any thing for your satisfaction but then you must be pleas'd considering our Communion at the time of the Separation was infinitly greater than the Reformers as Learned and as Holy for ought any body knows and in possession for many hundred years of the Doctrins and Practices now condemn'd by these Reformers to demand more clear and evident proofs against our Doctrins than we bring for them for upon but equal proof we that are forty to one and every whit as learned as the others especially having receiv'd what we profess from our Fore-fathers from Christs time for ought any body knows for no body can say when what we hold and practise begun have no reason to submit to so much a less number at the charge of so great a confusion as must needs happen and God's Command of Unity be broke into the bargain You must therefore demand the most evident proofs that Nature can admit of to prove those Doctrins of theirs upon which they ground their Separation or else it will be criminal Schism and you must desert their Communion If they attempt to prove it from Scripture they must not bring obscure passages out of it to oppose or interpret clear ones for that is not to explicate but to confound not to draw Light and Truth out of Scripture but to cast more Darkness upon it Neither can an obscure and doubtful Title lawfully or reasonably cast any Body out of the possession of a belief for which he has clear and evident ones to shew They must therefore bring Texts that prove their Points in Terms for their interpretation is no more to be allow'd of than ours and Scripture ought to be taken literally where the literal sense does not imply a contradiction Note It may be reasonably suppos'd that these undeniable Principles were the cause why the Doctors as it will appear in all this Conference would never venture upon any citation of the Scripture to prove their Doctrin for which they separated from the Roman Church acknowledged then universally for the true Church but were forc'd to fly to some obscure Sentences of the Fathers even which will yet appear to make more for the Roman Church than for the Reformers Drs. All Scriptures ought not to be expounded literally which do not imply a Contradiction in a literal sense I am a Vine ought not to be expounded literally yet it implies no Contradiction or at least no more than this Christ is Bread. Cath. I am a Vine does imply a Contradiction for Christ cannot be Christ and a Vine at the same time Christ